Heated exchange, scuffle between neighbours not enough to attract abetment of suicide offence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said neighbourhood quarrels, even when they involve heated exchanges and physical scuffles, cannot automatically amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code [Geeta vs. The State of Karnataka].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan set aside the conviction of Geeta (appellant) who had been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by the Karnataka High Court for allegedly abetting the suicide of her neighbour in 2008.

The case arose from an incident in August 2008 when Sarika, a 25-year-old student who also took tuition classes at her home, set herself on fire following persistent disputes with her neighbour Geeta. In her statement recorded at the hospital before her death, Sarika alleged Geeta frequently abused her and mocked her for being unmarried, and that on the evening of August 12, 2008, Geeta and others abused and assaulted her family, provoking her to pour kerosene on herself. Sarika succumbed to burn injuries on September 2, 2008.

The trial court acquitted four co-accused but convicted Geeta, holding that her conduct amounted to instigation. The High Court partly confirmed this view, holding that Sarika was a sensitive person who took the extreme step after being constantly harassed.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the evidence did not establish the intention required to constitute abetment.

The bench observed that neighbourhood quarrels are unfortunate but a common feature of community living and cannot by itself be treated as instigation to suicide.

“Though ‘love thy neighbour’ is the ideal scenario, neighbourhood quarrels are not unknown to societal living. They are as old as community living itself. The question is whether on facts there has been a case of abetment of suicide?” the Court said.

The Court referred to several precedents to reiterate that casual or angry words or even harassment do not suffice unless it is shown that the accused had the intention to provoke the deceased to take her life.

On this point, the bench emphasised the principle laid down in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh that instigation must involve circumstances where the deceased is left with no option but to commit suicide.

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act… A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation,” the Court said.

Applying these standards, the Court held that the allegations, even if accepted at their highest, did not establish that Geeta intended to push Sarika to suicide.

“These quarrels occur in everyday life, and on facts we are not able to conclude that there was an instigation on the part of the appellant to such an extent that the victim was left with no other option but to commit suicide,” the bench said.

Accordingly, the Court allowed Geeta's appeal and acquitted her of the charges.

The appellant Geeta was represented by advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Yash S Tiwari, Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Supreeta Sharanagouda.

The respondent was represented by advocate DL Chidananda.

[Read Judgment]